The foundations of a democratic form of government are that everyone gets one vote, and the majority “rules.” We learned this in kindergarten when the teacher asked for a show of hands to make a choice between the playground and a movie.

It’s tough to be in the minority, but that’s the way democracy works. If it is OK to choose those democratically made choices by which we will we abide and those by which we won’t, then what is the point of the democratic process?

Those charged with enforcing the law cannot choose which laws they will enforce as if there were some “enforcement buffet.” I understand that law enforcement agencies have to prioritize based on resources and other logistical considerations. However, declaring categorically that there are laws they will not enforce because they disagree with them is irresponsible and contrary to the ideals of the democratic process.

Your positions would be correct, “if” this were a democracy. We have a Representative Republic. The Founders abhorred democracy, for democracy is mob rule. The old analogy of two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner sums up majority rule perfectly. Once the majority figures out that it can vote themselves free stuff from the minority, they do. Democracy is majority rule. It is the “dictatorship of the majority over the minority, which is why the Founders established a Representative Republic. In a Representative Republic, the people’s representatives are elected by the majority, but the representatives take a sacred oath to honor and defend the Constitution. The representatives take their constituent’s special interests in mind, but only as these fit within the Rule of Law, which is the Constitution, which is based on Natural Law. The Constitution recognizes the fact that people are free. They own themselves. Natural Law and the Constitution recognize the fact that free people have an unalienable right to defend themselves from all threats, including the threat of an overreaching tyrannical government. To be successful a Representative Republic requires that the representative be moral and honorable people. Sadly, most people drawn to politics are neither moral nor honorable, which means they can’t be trusted. The Democrat Party controlled Colorado legislature created, and with the governor’s signature, passed unconstitutional gun control laws. In doing so, they betrayed their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. They also went against the overwhelming wishes of the vast majority of Colorado residents. In betraying their oath of office they far exceeded their authority. When politicians fail to uphold the Rule of Law, the County Sheriffs become the last line of defense, short of the people themselves. The Country Sheriffs are honoring their oath in refusing to enforce these unconstitutional laws. Rather than castigate them, you should thank them for protecting your rights.

There is a lawful way to pass gun control laws. This mechanism is provided for in the Constitution. It requires an amendment to the Constitution. Anything short of a constitutional amendment is unlawful.

It is important to understand that government sponsored gun control laws are not about protecting people. These laws are not about trying to prevent tragedies like Aurora, Columbine or Sandy Hook. These laws represent the slippery slope to gun confiscation. The government hates the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment gets in the way of the complete enslavement of the people.

It is also important to understand that free people do not have to beg for permission from government to defend themselves. By their birth people are born with this right. Have you noticed that all of these gun control laws do not apply to the government itself? Think about this. This is not by accident.

Mr. Meglen, thank you for your well thought out response to someone whom clearly does not understand the constitution. It is very unsettling what our Gov. is doing today, and your words give me hope that there are still people out there that are aware of the rights we have, and are articulate enough to point out the lies and wrongs of people like Mr. Bashinski.

Except universal background checks and a 15 round magazine is highly likely to be ruled constitutional.

Supreme Court in ruling that outright bans on handguns is unconstitutional also explicitly stated that regulations are allowed. The universal background check lacks even a legal theory as to why it would be unconstitutional. The 15 round magazine limit would require the courts accepting the theory that 15 rounds causes weapons to be useless for personal defense.

It is an easy argument to defend 15 rounds as a reasonable limit to collateral damage since even trained police officers are often found to have been become excited in a shootout and kept kept firing until they had to reload. And thus many police depts limit their officers to 12 or so rounds per magazine.

So no one that respect the US Supreme Court and a decision written by Justice Scalia would suggest that the new Colorado gun laws are unconstitutional. The dissenting justices would have given government a greater ability to regulate guns so there is literally no one on the Supreme suggesting these sort of gun regulations are not constitutional.

I have already discussed with you whether any form of gun control is constitutional. I think as long as I can purchase a gun, the constitution is satisfied.

Your argument uses a tried and true device of someone trying to defend an indefensible position. You started out arguing one thing, and then changed to something completely different. The issue I raised was not our constitution, but about individual law enforcement agencies choosing which democratically-passed (and I mean majority vote in a representative body) laws they will enforce. Additionally, neither issue has to do with whether we live in a democracy or a "representativocracy." We operate by majority rule, by design of our founders.

County sheriffs and other law enforcement officials have no role in lawmaking, also by design of our founders. They get to question laws like everyone else, let their opinions be heard, and exercise their right to vote a certain way and try to convince others to do the same. I have no problem with law-enforcement personnel having their opinions, but their oath is to enforce the laws, not decide their constitutionality. Rule of law is one of the most important aspects of civilization; without it, we might descend into anarchy.

There is legitimate disagreement about what the 2nd amendment to our constitution means. You see the intent as clear, I and others do not. From either perspective, simply saying it means one thing or the other doesn't make it so. We can either continue to argue about this - I call this "circle-jerking the problem" - or we can look for ways to compromise. Do we want to spend our energy on the problem or the solution?

Simply taking every opportunity to castigate others for disagreeing with you and not seeing our constitution in the same way as you does nothing to moving us forward toward any rational solution to the issue.